Abstract: The goal of this research is to examine and explore information retrieval process of patrons who access institutional repositories. Repositories are generally hosted by public universities and run by volunteers which allow researchers to submit their draft versions of their manuscripts in pre-print forms. In this study, we analyze using search methods to sort out research papers classified according to their levels of relevance that are available from a repository, and report the pattern of search results as our findings. Our model employs search methods for searching Econpapers which utilize RePEc bibliographic data. Our analysis attempts to highlight how information seekers, scholars and researchers search relevant topics of their interest and how relevant such information is which is retrieved from an institutional repository. This could aid researchers to modify their search processes to obtain better search results from their queries. The goal is to obtain the most relevant documents from online search. We discuss about the methods employed to retrieve information which is most pertinent to the requirements of researchers. A broad implication could be better utilization of time and resources for efficient retrieval of the most relevant documents of interest that could be expected from searching institutional repositories.
Abstract: In the last 3 years, several new (free) sources for academic publication and citation data have joined the now well-established Google Scholar, complementing the two traditional commercial data sources: Scopus and the Web of Science. The most important of these new data sources are Microsoft Academic (2016), Crossref (2017) and Dimensions (2018). Whereas Microsoft Academic has received some attention from the bibliometric commu-nity, there are as yet very few studies that have investigated the coverage of Crossref or Dimensions. To address this gap, this brief letter assesses Crossref and Dimensions cover-age in comparison to Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science through a detailed investigation of the full publication and citation record of a single academic, as well as six top journals in Business & Economics. Overall, this first small-scale study suggests that, when compared to Scopus and the Web of Science, Crossref and Dimensions have a similar or better coverage for both publications and citations, but a substantively lower coverage than Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic. If our find-ings can be confirmed by larger-scale studies, Crossref and Dimensions might serve as good alternatives to Scopus and the Web of Science for both literature reviews and citation analysis. However, Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic maintain their position as the most comprehensive free sources for publication and citation data
Abstract: Many studies have explored the relationship between housing prices and environmental characteristics using the hedonic price model (HPM). However, few studies have deeply examined the impact of scene perception near residential units on housing prices. This article used house purchasing records from FANG.com and open access geolocation data (including massive street view pictures, point of interest (POI) data and road network data) and proposed a framework named “open-access-dataset-based hedonic price modeling (OADB-HPM)” for comprehensive analysis in Beijing and Shanghai, China. A state-of-the-art deep learning framework and massive Baidu street view panoramas were employed to visualize and quantify three major scene perception characteristics (greenery, sky and building view indexes, abbreviated GVI, SVI and BVI, respectively) at the street level. Then, the newly introduced scene perception characteristics were combined with other traditional characteristics in the HPM to calculate marginal prices, and the results for Beijing and Shanghai were explored and compared. The empirical results showed that the greenery and sky perceptual elements at the property level can significantly increase the housing price in Beijing (RMB 39,377 and 6011, respectively) and Shanghai (RMB 21,689 and 2763, respectively), indicating an objectively higher willingness by buyers to pay for houses that provide the ability to perceive natural elements in the surrounding environment. This study developed quantification tools to help decision makers and planners understand and analyze the interaction between residents and urban scene components.
“Romer believes in making research transparent. He argues that openness and clarity about methodology is important for scientific research to gain trust. As Romer explained in an April 2018 blog post, in an effort to make his own work transparent, he tried to use Mathematica to share one of his studies in a way that anyone could explore every detail of his data and methods. It didn’t work. He says that Mathematica’s owner, Wolfram Research, made it too difficult to share his work in a way that didn’t require other people to use the proprietary software, too. Readers also could not see all of the code he used for his equations.
Instead of using Mathematica, Romer discovered that he could use a Jupyter notebook for sharing his research. Jupyter notebooks are web applications that allow programmers and researchers to share documents that include code, charts, equations, and data. Jupyter notebooks allow for code written in dozens of programming languages. For his research, Romer used Python—the most popular language for data science and statistics.
Importantly, unlike notebooks made from Mathematica, Jupyter notebooks are open source, which means that anyone can look at all of the code that created them. …”
Abstract: The increasing volume and complexity of research, scholarly publication, and research information puts an added strain on traditional methods of scholarly communication and evaluation. Information goods and networks are not standard market goods – and so we should not rely on markets alone to develop new forms of scholarly publishing. The affordances of digital information and networks create many opportunities to unbundle the functions of scholarly communication – the central challenge is to create a range of new forms of publication that effectively promote both market and collaborative ecosystems.
Abstract: Although researchers have begun to investigate the difference in scientific impact between closed-access and open-access journals, studies that focus specifically on dynamic and disciplinary differences remain scarce. This study serves to fill this gap by using a large longitudinal dataset to examine these differences. Using CiteScore as a proxy for journal scientific impact, we employ a series of statistical tests to identify the quartile categories and disciplinary areas in which impact trends differ notably between closed- and open-access journals. We find that closed-access journals have a noticeable advantage in social sciences (for example, business and economics), whereas open-access journals perform well in medical and healthcare domains (for example, health profession and nursing). Moreover, we find that after controlling for a journal’s rank and disciplinary differences, there are statistically more closed-access journals in the top 10%, Quartile 1, and Quartile 2 categories as measured by CiteScore; in contrast, more open-access journals in Quartile 4 gained scientific impact from 2011 to 2015. Considering dynamic and disciplinary trends in tandem, we find that more closed-access journals in Social Sciences gained in impact, whereas in biochemistry and medicine, more open-access journals experienced such gains.
“An Economics section of the scientific repository arXiv is opening this month. arXiv is internationally acknowledged as a pioneering open access preprint repository. It has transformed the scholarly communication infrastructure of multiple fields of physics and plays an increasingly prominent role in mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance, and statistics. arXiv is an essential component of scientific communication for many researchers worldwide in order to rapidly and widely disseminate their findings, establish priority of their discoveries, and seek feedback to help improve their work. It is hosted by the Cornell University Library with additional funding from 220 members libraries and several scientific foundations including the Simons Foundation.”
Abstract: This paper analyses the interrelationship between perceived journal reputation and its relevance for academics’ work. Based on a survey of 705 members of the German Economic Association (GEA), we find a strong interrelationship between perceived journal reputation and relevance where a journal’s perceived relevance has a stronger effect on its reputation than vice versa. Moreover, past journal ratings conducted by the Handelsblatt and the GEA directly affect journals’ reputation among German economists and indirectly also their perceived relevance, but the effect on reputation is more than twice as large as the effect on perceived relevance. In general, citations have a non-linear impact on perceived journal reputation and relevance. While the number of landmark articles published in a journal (as measured by the so-called H-index) increases the journal’s reputation, an increase in the H-index even tends to decrease a journal’s perceived relevance, as long as this is not simultaneously reflected in a higher Handelsblatt and/or GEA rating. This suggests that a journal’s relevance is driven by average article quality, while reputation depends more on truly exceptional articles. We also identify significant differences in the views on journal relevance and reputation between different age groups.
“Using survey data on the evaluations of 150 economics journals, a recent study explored the relationship between economics journals’ reputation and perceived relevance amongst economists working in the field. Justus Haucap shares some of the headline findings from the analysis based on the survey data. The findings suggest that a journal’s relevance is driven by average article quality, while reputation depends more on truly exceptional articles….”